Quote:
Originally Posted by sa226
I'm quite sure that luck played a part in the success of the landings, but you can't discount the efforts the allies went to in preparation for the landings. In spite of everything that went wrong, the attention to detail in an era without computers was incredible.
The plan all along was to invade France, but would the timing and location have been different if the best of the German army wasn't caught up in Russia?
You can't discount the effectiveness of Patton's decoy army.
The plan to land at low tide rather than mid to high tide probably saved hundreds of lives.
The work of the pathfinders goes too often unmentioned.
Its not like German armour was a no show all together. The allies faced plenty in the battle for Normandy.
Had Rommel been present with a few armoured divisions, I doubt they would have added much to the beach fortifications. They would have reinforced the defenders. Maybe the allied aerial and naval bombardment would have softened up the German armour rather than completely miss the beach fortifications.
There were just so many moving parts and details that contributed to the ultimate success or failure of the landings, that I don't like to think the victory of the allies was tipped in their favour because of luck.
|
I would agree, there were tons of moving parts, but Rommel and the German's had lost any kind of mobility ability that would have prevented the allies from unloading their heavier weapons.
It wasn't as much luck as fortune.
The allies had a supreme battle plan and later studies revealed that German Intelligence which in moves were portrayed as evil super spies were actually closer to a Laurel and Hardy comedy reel. Ultimately failed the Germans.